Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Am I wrong in feeling a little sorry for Adam Johnson? watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Except consent was not relevant to the offences which which he was charged.

    If he had, for example, been charged with rape, section 74 would have been relevant. There are other offences under SOA where consent is relevant (see for example section 45).
    I thought the discussion had moved on and you were no longer explicitly discussing Adam Johnson, but the use of 'statutory rape' in general, not specifically relating to Adams offenses...
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    I thought the discussion had moved on and you were no longer explicitly discussing Adam Johnson, but the use of 'statutory rape' in general, not specifically relating to Adams offenses...
    Sorry we are at cross purposes. I thought you were reverting to Johnson
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    When I originally started this discussion, the first thing I said was be careful of borrowing from other legal systems.

    Most people wouldn't have called it statutory rape before they heard the expression on American television programmes. My guess is the term started being used on American television from the 1980s. You will not find it in English legal textbooks. It is as meaningless in England as "common law marriage".

    Before 1956 rape was a common law offence. Between 1956 and 2003, rape was an offence created by statute but defined at common law. Since 2003, rape has been a wholly statutory offence regardless of the age of the victim. To refer in England to statutory rape would be like saying "killing dead" or "arson by fire". It would be completely tautologous. There is no rape that isn't statutory rape; there is no sort of killing that doesn't involve death; arson necessarily involves fire.
    I'm entirely aware of that however, like I said, if you asked most people what the offence of having sex with a child is called they'd probably say statutory rape. It would be completely different if you asked people who had a legal education


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    They didn't say that. That was in the soa 1956. Old law. You're pathetic in arguing that.


    The 2003 act is the current law and that does not mention under 16s. We live in a common law system, the judges interpret and give meaning to the statute, not the cps. The common law makes it quite clear that under 16s can consent, that means it's not rape but is sexual activity.
    You still haven't answered the question as to why it is not rape, but sexual activity with a child if the girl or boy consents.

    And you haven't answered my other question. If you ask me to kill you and I do, have you not consented?

    You can consent but the consent doesn't make it lawful. Same applies to both. You seem to struggle with the idea that consent is not relevant to the legality. Something can be consented to without being lawful.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Okay sorry, you of course know more about the law than the Crown Prosecution Service


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    I'm entirely aware of that however, like I said, if you asked most people what the offence of having sex with a child is called they'd probably say statutory rape. It would be completely different if you asked people who had a legal education
    The erroneous views of the public as to what the law is, cannot alter what the law actually is.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    I mean, if she was less than one year older this wouldn't even be a legal issue?
    The difference between when the incident happened, and a few months down the line draws the difference between a child too young for sex, and a woman, who to have sex with would be completely legal?

    I know there needs to be a legal definition, a line to draw. But it just makes me feel uncomfortable somehow.
    I don't see a problem, but then I always obtain two forms of photo ID before sex.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    I don't see a problem, but then I always obtain two forms of photo ID before sex.
    I can think of a few occasions where a guy asked me to show ID when I just started clubbing at 18 :rofl: As if he thought he actually had a chance anyway right.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    I can think of a few occasions where a guy asked me to show ID when I just started clubbing at 18 :rofl: As if he thought he actually had a chance anyway right.
    Was this guy a bouncer?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TurboCretin)
    Was this guy a bouncer?
    Plural, and no obviously
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Okay sorry, you of course know more about the law than the Crown Prosecution Service


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Except the cps never said that.
    So you know more about the law than the judiciary?
    I notice you still haven't answered my point. If you ask me to kill you and I do, have you not consented?
    You also haven't answered why you will not be tried for rape if the sex was consensual but rather a different offence. You're incredibly stubborn, unable to admit you're wrong when you clearly are.

    For some bizarre reason you are unable to comprehend the fact that consent is irrelevant to a crime. You can consent to something, that doesn't necessarily make it lawful. You cannot get your head around the fact that one can consent to sex yet that consent not making it legal. And you refuse to respond to the point about asking someone to kill you and that being consent.

    You know nothing about the law. Quite clearly you have never studied it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Except the cps never said that.
    So you know more about the law than the judiciary?
    I notice you still haven't answered my point. If you ask me to kill you and I do, have you not consented?
    You also haven't answered why you will not be tried for rape if the sex was consensual but rather a different offence. You're incredibly stubborn, unable to admit you're wrong when you clearly are.

    For some bizarre reason you are unable to comprehend the fact that consent is irrelevant to a crime. You can consent to something, that doesn't necessarily make it lawful. You cannot get your head around the fact that one can consent to sex yet that consent not making it legal. And you refuse to respond to the point about asking someone to kill you and that being consent.

    You know nothing about the law. Quite clearly you have never studied it.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Murder is a completely different crime and irrelevant. To say 'why is it not called rape?' is an idiotic argument; crimes have different names. The simple fact is that someone under 16 cannot consent to sex. If you have sex without someone under 16 it's a crime, thus their 'consent' is irrelevant.

    Haha I've missed your ad hominem
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Underscore__)
    Murder is a completely different crime and irrelevant. To say 'why is it not called rape?' is an idiotic argument; crimes have different names. The simple fact is that someone under 16 cannot consent to sex. If you have sex without someone under 16 it's a crime, thus their 'consent' is irrelevant.

    Haha I've missed your ad hominem
    Yes they can, which is why if it's consented to, it's not rape. As you say, consent is irrelevant. Not because it can't be given, but because the crime is not based on consent.

    If an under 16 could not consent, how come if they consent it is a defence to rape?
    Show me where in the statute it says under 16s cannot consent, because it isn't anywhere.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Yes they can, which is why if it's consented to, it's not rape. As you say, consent is irrelevant. Not because it can't be given, but because the crime is not based on consent.

    If an under 16 could not consent, how come if they consent it is a defence to rape?
    Show me where in the statute it says under 16s cannot consent, because it isn't anywhere.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Nowhere in the statute does it explicitly say someone under 13 cannot consent but that is the case. Someone under 16 cannot consent in law, having sexual relations with someone under 16 will always be a crime.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Twinpeaks)
    I mean, if she was less than one year older this wouldn't even be a legal issue?
    No, because even if the girl was 16 he still decided to cheat on his pregnant girlfriend. That might not have been a crime but he would still be a **** either way. However she wasn't 16, she was underage and he knew that. So I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

    Footballers shouldn't be treated like anyone else. If you heard of someone cheating on their pregnant girlfriend would you feel sorry for them? If no then how come you would feel sorry for Johnson?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Show me where in the statute it says under 16s cannot consent, because it isn't anywhere.
    Sexual Offences Act 2003:

    9 Sexual activity with a child

    (1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

    (a) he intentionally touches another person (B),

    (b) the touching is sexual, and

    (c) either—

    (i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

    (ii) B is under 13.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—

    (a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,

    (b) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,

    (c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or

    (d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,

    is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

    (3) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.


    You'll notice that, in this section of the act, consent of the victim (person B) is not a valid defence to an accusation of the crime. The crime is not rape: it is sexual activity with a child - what the Americans call statutory rape. Rape itself is criminalized elsewhere in the act, of course.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...nces/section/9
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Sexual Offences Act 2003:

    9 Sexual activity with a child

    (1) A person aged 18 or over (A) commits an offence if—

    (a) he intentionally touches another person (B),

    (b) the touching is sexual, and

    (c) either—

    (i) B is under 16 and A does not reasonably believe that B is 16 or over, or

    (ii) B is under 13.

    (2) A person guilty of an offence under this section, if the touching involved—

    (a) penetration of B’s anus or vagina with a part of A’s body or anything else,

    (b) penetration of B’s mouth with A’s penis,

    (c) penetration of A’s anus or vagina with a part of B’s body, or

    (d) penetration of A’s mouth with B’s penis,

    is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.

    (3) Unless subsection (2) applies, a person guilty of an offence under this section is liable—

    (a) on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum or both;

    (b) on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.


    You'll notice that, in this section of the act, consent of the victim (person B) is not a valid defence to an accusation of the crime. The crime is not rape: it is sexual activity with a child - what the Americans call statutory rape. Rape itself is criminalized elsewhere in the act, of course.

    http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/...nces/section/9
    That doesn't say they cannot consent. It just means that their consent is irrelevant. It's not about consent.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elitepower)
    No, because even if the girl was 16 he still decided to cheat on his pregnant girlfriend. That might not have been a crime but he would still be a **** either way. However she wasn't 16, she was underage and he knew that. So I don't feel sorry for him one bit.

    Footballers shouldn't be treated like anyone else. If you heard of someone cheating on their pregnant girlfriend would you feel sorry for them? If no then how come you would feel sorry for Johnson?
    Why would I feel sorry for him on the basis that he's a footballer? It's more likely to be the other way around...

    I don't know why people keep bringing up that he cheated, that's an entirely different matter.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)

    You'll notice that, in this section of the act, consent of the victim (person B) is not a valid defence to an accusation of the crime. The crime is not rape: it is sexual activity with a child - what the Americans call statutory rape. Rape itself is
    Bornblue and I have been saying this and saying this and saying it again.

    Underscore is trying to assert that the reason such behaviour is criminalised is because a person 13-16 cannot consent. We have been saying that yes they can give a valid consent because, if they couldn't, the perpetrator would commit the section 1 offence of rape. As you say, consent is irrelevant to the section 9 offence as it is to the section 5 offence of rape of a child under 13.

    An important difference between the laws of most American states and English law is that in most states there is no idea that there is different criminality depending on whether the young person consents or not. That different criminality is important because the maximum sentence for rape of a 13, 14 or 15 year old is life whilst the maximum sentence for sexual intercourse (ie consensual or not provably non-consensual) with a 13, 14 or 15 year old is 14 years.

    That does mean that at the upper end of the scale there will be meaningful differences in treatment. The sentencing starting point for a multiple rapist is 15 years. That is higher than the maximum sentence for a multiple groomer of 13-15 year olds.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    An important difference between the laws of most American states and English law is that in most states there is no idea that there is different criminality depending on whether the young person consents or not..
    Yes.It seems that many people get their knowledge of the law from watching American cop shows on TV. The term statutory rape has no meaning in England, but people still use it to mean underage sex, and the relevant law is itself divided into sections that dish out completely different punishments for the different crimes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Bornblue and I have been saying this and saying this and saying it again.

    Underscore is trying to assert that the reason such behaviour is criminalised is because a person 13-16 cannot consent. We have been saying that yes they can give a valid consent because, if they couldn't, the perpetrator would commit the section 1 offence of rape. As you say, consent is irrelevant to the section 9 offence as it is to the section 5 offence of rape of a child under 13.

    An important difference between the laws of most American states and English law is that in most states there is no idea that there is different criminality depending on whether the young person consents or not. That different criminality is important because the maximum sentence for rape of a 13, 14 or 15 year old is life whilst the maximum sentence for sexual intercourse (ie consensual or not provably non-consensual) with a 13, 14 or 15 year old is 14 years.

    That does mean that at the upper end of the scale there will be meaningful differences in treatment. The sentencing starting point for a multiple rapist is 15 years. That is higher than the maximum sentence for a multiple groomer of 13-15 year olds.
    I really can't understand how you seem to think you're right and I'm wrong. From the beginning I have said that someone under the age of sixteen is incapable of giving valid consent in law. Sexual activity with someone under 16 is illegal thus their consent is irrelevant; thus meaning their legal consent isn't possible.

    The reason I believe s.9 is in there is because there is a belief that people under 16 lack the capacity to consent but to lesser extent than those under 13. I can't see any other reason it would be criminalised


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.